Concussion Baseline Retesting Is Necessary When Initial Scores Are Low.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether (1) initial baseline scores are significantly better for those who have valid (initial valid) versus invalid scores (initial invalid) on their concussion baseline testing, (2) retesting results in significantly improved baseline scores, and (3) there is a significant difference in scores between those who have valid scores on their initial attempt and those who retook baseline tests (retest valid). DESIGN: Prospective, repeated-measures. SETTING: Two years of collegiate preparticipation concussion baseline testing. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred forty-seven male and female Division I collegiate athletes (19.02 ± 1.31 years, female = 217). INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Participants were divided into initial valid and initial invalid. The retest group was further divided into their initial (initial invalid) and final valid attempt (retest valid). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were analyzed to determine the relationship between the 3 groups and overall initial and final scores on 28 individual items: total symptoms score, coordination, near-point convergence, CNS Vital Signs (CNSVS), Senaptec Sensory Station, and Neurocom Sensory Organization Test (SOT). RESULTS: The initial valid group scored significantly better than the initial invalid group on 8 CNSVS items and 5 Senaptec items (P < 0.002). The retest valid scores were significantly better compared with the initial invalid scores on 17 items (P < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Retesting is recommended for individuals who score below acceptable ranges. This is important because athletes may experience a learning effect and are highly motivated during postinjury testing, so accurate baseline scores are imperative for athlete safety. Completion time for the coordination test may be a more informative option.

Evidence to Eliminate Double-Leg Conditions From the Modified Balance Error Scoring System and Balance Error Scoring System.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to assess the differences between the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS), modified BESS (mBESS), and both measures with the double-leg (DL) stances removed [BESS-revised (BESS-R) and mBESS-revised (mBESS-R)] among healthy and concussed collegiate student-athletes. DESIGN: Retrospective, repeated-measures cohort study. SETTING: Clinical. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Healthy and concussed collegiate athletes (baseline n = 622, postinjury n = 41) from 12 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I sports cheer and dance at a single university. INTERVENTION OR INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Balance Error Scoring System, mBESS, BESS-R, and mBESS-R test versions from baseline and postinjury testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mBESS and BESS and their revised versions with DL stances removed (mBESS-R and BESS-R) scores were compared at baseline. Baseline and postinjury scores for all 4 BESS variations and the 6 BESS conditions were compared for those who sustained a concussion. RESULTS: The BESS and BESS-R were statistically different at baseline for the entire sample (99.6% confidence interval 0.32, 0.38, P > 0.0001). None of the other comparisons were significantly different ( P > 0.004). CONCLUSION: Although our results do suggest statistically significant differences between the BESS and BESS-R test versions, they do not represent clinically meaningful differences. The greatest mean difference between all test versions was <1 error; therefore, these BESS versions may not be specific enough to identify balance deficits at baseline or postinjury. Elimination of the time intensive DL measures in the revised BESS variations may be a more clinically practical alternative.